As far as I know it is not Sweden blocking a sale to Turkiye. It is not NATO. It is Germany. Why make life difficult for Sweden and NATO? If you want to persuade Germany to change its mind, how about doing that instead of creating problems for others? Carry on like this and you may end up in a worse position than now. No F-16, no Typhoon and jeopardising F110 for KAAN. No new western or Turkish fighters for many years. Has it not dawned on Turkiye that it is moving towards that position?
NATO is 80% U.S. If Sweden is trying to get into NATO it's because of U.S. persuasion, in order for them to have a more pronounced military presence in the Arctic as the ice melts away. Turkey has been trying to have conversations about U.S. role in propping up PKK in Syria, which they are justifying by disingenuously using ISIS' non-existent threat as an excuse to rename PKK in Syria to sell it as some sort of independent "democratic" paramilitary group to have them stand guard for them when they steal oil from northern Syria and turn PKK into an effective army, and create another puppet state in the region akin to Israel (a second aircraft carrier if you will) to be able to put further pressure on regional independent actors like Iran and Turkey without having to deal with an independent state, instead opting to create an obedient tool in "Kurdistan".
U.S. is willing to completely ignore and scuff at an ally's genuine security concerns right on its borders, just to have a second Israel in the middle east, thousands of kilometers away from its borders, and they are willing to demonize and alienate Turkey in the process because Turkey and its armed forces have dared to show some independence in pursuing their interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean. So they have signalled that the only thing they will tolerate is complete obedience and puppet-hood, and if Turkey is not willing to play that role, they have no problem in elevating a separatist terrorist group to fill in the gap.
Turkey will have to use any card they can to convince the ever vanishing number of rational actors in U.S. state apparatus, which is being completely hijacked by myopic considerations of lobbying groups, that Turkey sees the adventurous nature of U.S. foreign policy on Turkey's borders as existential threats and that the cost of creating the 2nd Israel out of PKK is too high to maintain. Sweden is one trump card to signal this (and Sweden is fair game, as they have been instrumental in propping up PKK in Syria). If U.S. decides that Turkey's ally-ship is worth less than a second Israel through PKK, then not only F110s but even an alliance with the west will be questioned. We're in a transitional period, and the decisions have to be made by U.S. Unfortunately our government has been doing a botchy job of conveying these messages; because of mismanagement of economy, they are too wary of upsetting the markets. But the day of judgement is inching ever closer and the crucial decisions have to be made in the end.
Just to note, these Turkish endeavors to acquire F-16s and Typhoons are genuine requests to replenish TURAF's aging fleet, sure. But they are also a part of the signal. They help us gauge commitments and in the meantime, by evaluating the response, tweak the roadmap for the mid-term engagement with the west on the question of EU's maximalist attitude in Eas-Med, and U.S. support for Greek maximalist positions in the Aegean. You cannot just support fully the opposing side of your "ally" in the case of all conflicts of interest, and then just expect them to grovel. That's not a rational expectation.
To have a proper discussions in these matters you have to know quite a bit about how much U.S. has meddled in Turkish internal affairs, literally attempting to hijack our government, and the process we've gone through with PKK and EU accession talks, etc. to know the nuances of the discussions. Watching YouTube videos and reading op-eds by journalists who cannot spell Turkish president's name, about how Turkey is the troublemaker of NATO just doesn't cut it. That just proves to us that U.S., its state department and the network of think tanks and media feeding from its statements still are adamant about doubling down on their ridiculous plans. (Because "Turkey is the troublemaker of NATO" is not a serious analysis, it is just an attempt of propagandizing the domestic audience by obscuring the facts and not discussing the issue in an objective way, completely ignoring Turkey's counter arguments. Even if American think tanks and media genuinely held that position, if they didn't want to do propaganda for decisions that they have already made, but they wanted to engage genuinely in debate to resolve issues, they would try to answer Turkish side's argument and that would require mentioning them, which they never do; so, from that, you can deduce those hit pieces are not genuine discussions.)
www.thenationalnews.com
www.reuters.com
